And you're still on that 'I'm the only expert' thing. I hate to repeat myself, but hey, what's a computer keyboard for in the middle of the night?

I'm sure you're an entirely knowledgable and able and talented writer and editor. And I, and a whole lot of other people, are just as knowledgable and talented and able as you. You've got nothing on me - or many others here - in writing and related abilities and talents.

It would be appropriate here for me to apologize for letting some of the air out of your bloated ego, but I know nothing I - or anyone else - can say is going to accomplish that task.

See post #45.

No matter how much flak you try to throw up into the air, I'll refer it back to post #45, which points to where you undo yourself with what you posted yourself.

I hate thoughts rendered as dialogue. Surely it isn't neccessary and the CMS is not yet the Qu'aran.

Writers who feel the need to 'dialoguise' thoughts are often not following the story thread and often confusing the issue of first person narrative.

I think perhaps the concept of 'dialogue' in thoughts (as if someone is having an actual debate inside their head - maybe two aspects of their personality having it out) presents a situation that I don't think applies. At least I've never had the occasion to use that sort of device, and I can certainly see your point about how it has the potential to confuse a reader (at least if not handled with care - I have seen it done in stories I've read and was not put off or confused as to what was going on).

But questions of mechanics and how go about doing it aside, I've had occasions in stories (not often but now and then) when I think it's important to have my first person character thinking specific words rather than just entertaining general thoughts.

Oh, and about the Qu'aran thing. As you now know you've come to a point of disagreement with His Worship SR. So try to post something back that will mollify him and stroke his ego. It's really better that way - keeps him from getting agitated.

[quote=sr71plt;41987454]The lack of respect came from you initially, in post #17--and continued right on with ugly--and ignorant--characterizations of the folks in publishing. So, nertz to you on that. Again, it's a good thing you are self-publishing, because you are a publishing professional's worst nightmare. Nothing worse than a half-baked "it's all about me" writer./QUOTE]

Just a note for the uninitiated: this is SR's insult of last resort. I've seen him use it any number of times to exclude people who don't agree with him from the world of "professional publishers" or "professional writers" or "professional editors." I notice Mistress Lynn tends to go in this direction too occasionally. Apparently, within the confines of their world and frame of reference this is as bad as personal invective can get. It's a little sad.

But if you ever have occasion to not agree with them enough that they pull this chestnut out, the best thing really is to handle it with humor (because obviously one can't take it seriously).

Observe:

So, SR. So! So you think I'm a "publishing professional's" worst nightmare! AND a half-baked 'it's all about me' writer!

Oh, yeah! OH,YEAH!

Well, let me tell you something, bub. Like my good friend Bill S. would say YOU'RE nothing but a reeky idled-headed flap-dragon AND a craven rough-hewn bum-bailey. Not only that but you're also a currish plume-plumed mumble-news. AND I'd even go so far as to say you might very well be a misbegotten idle-headed nut-hook!

I'm game. Cite when I've ever used the phrase "you are a publishing professional's worst nightmare" ever, ever before on this forum.

(But, yep, I've used "half-baked" before. It fits you and soooo many other folks.)

You've sunk your own boat on this thread, toots. You didn't need much help from me. (See post #45.)

(And I'm waiting for that citation. But you won't be able to find it, because I've never had a reason to use it on anyone here before you.)

Don't look now, but I think your head has exploded. That last paragraph was fun, though.

So you've got the idea that I've got some sort of obligation to pour through every post on these board? Only a weedy malmsey-nosed joithead would expect something like that. (Aside to other board residents: I'm not sure SR is bright enough to have figured out yet that all this is from the entertaining world of Shakespearean insults). I'm not surprised that you don't have any recollection. Insults and name calling and putdowns just roll off your fingertips so freely that I suppose you barely notice anymore.

I'm sure 'half-baked' fits soooooooooo many here, at least in your estimation. You just don't seem to be able to make peace with the idea that your abilities and skills and knowledge base are nothing out of the ordinary and are shared by many people on these boards and elsewhere.

I'm sure you are an entirely fine writer and editor (I like to keep mentioning that to stroke your ego, with the hope that it will keep you from getting too agitated). But the difference between you and me is that I'm able to send that compliment your way and acknowledge that you have a base of skills and knowledge, while you have no capacity to acknowledge talent or skill or ability in anyone but yourself.

I've been hanging around these boards for maybe a couple or three years off and on. In that time I've never seen you compliment someone else on their skills or abilities or talents, or make a positive comment about someone else's work. You're just are constitutionally unable to acknowledge the talents or accomplishipments of anyone but yourself. You just can't get your fingers to move over a keyboard in such a way as to interact in an affirmative way with anyone.

That's really pretty pathetic and childish, SR. And you must be terribly insecure to have to bluster on every day about yourself and to not be able to acknowledge ability or talent in others.

Children, children, if you can't play nicely together try playing separately.

Private slanging matches are so boring that they should be conducted in PMs.

__________________
Latest news of my novels, including where to find free copies, can be found here.
My few remaining Literotica stories can be found here and here.

I am not a "qualified" editor, ex-pilot, ex-diplomat, or ex-CIA operative, or expert on literary derivations, nor do I post ten times a day on Lit; I am merely ?
As Asimov said, I am merely a merely.

Now, it's your turn, BonnieB. Cite when you have complimented a writer on this board about anything. Seems to me that "it's all about me" people like you do that even less here than I do.

Even on this thread, I tried to post discussion that gave the OP the options of working within the standards--and even gave discussion on why I don't find the standards the greatest myself (although I do follow them). All you did is brag about your nonstandard approach and get dismissive about anyone but yourself. And you have just made up premises for attacks on me out of thin air--and avoided responding to any challenges of that.

The crux of your postings to the issue of this thread can be found in post #45. All the rest is just you blowing hot air in a childish snit.

I get confused. Thoughts are not spoken so they can't be dialogue, italics or anything else, surely?

I tend to click out if a first person story tries to talk to itself in punctuation or italics.

My thoughts, pun intended, are that writers often ignore the myriad opportunities to avoid the 'pretend' syndrome of talking to themselves. I am the only one who thinks this alienates the reader?

I don't see your problem. I've mentioned several times that the standards back the use of straight roman, without quotes, for rendering of thoughts (CMS 13.41 gives two options). The discussion is on how to render thoughts, not whether to use them--which surely is something the author has the privilege of deciding for her/himself.

And (again) this is only addressing U.S. style. The British have their own conventions for rendering thoughts, I'm sure. I don't know what they are. As I've noted before, I've seen single quotes used for them in some of British-published books I've read. This isn't the U.S. convention, however. In U.S. style books published before 2003, you'll see italics used in many--it was included as an option in the U.S. standards before 2003 (and I personally regret they aren't still an option in the standards--but I don't regret it enough to throw the standards out the window just to be "it's all about me").

And I thought, That was the point when I began to feel such a power over Matthew. He was mine, my little toy, as his eyes anticipated the removal of the last shred of cloth between them and my naked breasts.

Whether to use thoughts in writing wasn't the issue on this thread. And making an issue of whether a writer can choose to use thoughts in her/his writing or not is pretty idiotic and dictatorial. This thread concerns how "best use" to render them in copy.

My opinion is I'd have to see the specific case of using thoughts in the specific story to give a specific opinion on what to do in that specific story at that specific point.

Whether to use thoughts in writing wasn't the issue on this thread. And making an issue of whether a writer can choose to use thoughts in her/his writing or not is pretty idiotic and dictatorial. This thread concerns how "best use" to render them in copy.

My opinion is I'd have to see the specific case of using thoughts in the specific story to give a specific opinion on what to do in that specific story at that specific point.

I'd like to ask this. In my story a character enters into a long description of an even that ahppened previously in his life, which I italicized.

In a stop-and-go monologue that included many pauses and a few tears of emotional pain, Ace related all that had happened.

<i>Ace had a reputation at school as being a bad boy. He'd gotten into several fights and routinely smoked joints behind the school with a few others of his same type. But unlike the others Ace was unusually dark and handsome, a strong draw to a girl like Cindy with her blonde hair and sexy body who was the straight-laced daughter to the post's lieutenant commander who expected responsibility and strict discipline.

It hadn't been a sanctioned relationship but rather a sneaky one. Cindy knew her father would never approve of her dating the son of an enlisted soldier because that involved the mixing of two separate and distinct military classes. But that hadn't stopped either of them. The draw was too great to ignore and both had been swept up in the uncontrollable riptide.

It had continued for the better part of two years without having been detected. But on high school graduation night everything changed. While many others attended parties, Ace whisked Cindy away and they drove to a secluded part of the large post with the intention of engaging in sex for their first time.

The road included twists and turns which Ace had driven many times before. But on this night his confidence was great and he wanted to impress his love and took the turns faster than ever before. Inevitably he reached one, lost control, left the two-lane road, and flipped his car twice.

Ace survived with a few bumps and bruises, but Cindy had not. The young woman he so dearly loved and expected to marry was gone.

A brief time went by when at any time he expected to be arrested and charged. Ace couldn't sleep. His life, his future, was on hold as he anticipated the worst. Three days elapsed before he was told by his father that they needed to attend a meeting with the post commander, his lieutenant commander, and his father.

Ace didn't know how he could face the father of the young woman he'd accidentally killed. It turned out to be the most stressful afternoon of his young life.

It was seven in the evening when the meeting went down. The lieutenant base commander was still dealing with the extremely painful loss of his loving teenage daughter.

Her father said that he had every right to send me to a federal prison for what I'd done, and would languish in misery there for several years. But then he questioned what good that would do? Cindy loved me, he said, as they'd found the letters they'd shared. No matter what happened to me she'd still be but a memory.

So my father intervened and asked where things would proceed from there.

When Cindy's father grew too emotional to continue, the base commander spoke up. He said that it wouldn't do any good to destroy two young lives, that it could go down on the official record as a tragic accident. If certain conditions were met.

He went on to stipulate that my base driving privileges were revoked. And that my wild days of irresponsible behavior would to come to an end when I immediately enlisted in the army. The base commander felt very strongly that the only way I could be straightened out was in a structured, disciplinary setting that the army could provide.

It didn't take much thinking or discussion with my father to realize the huge opportunity I was being offered, and so I took it.</i>

Whether to use thoughts in writing wasn't the issue on this thread. And making an issue of whether a writer can choose to use thoughts in her/his writing or not is pretty idiotic and dictatorial. This thread concerns how "best use" to render them in copy.

My opinion is I'd have to see the specific case of using thoughts in the specific story to give a specific opinion on what to do in that specific story at that specific point.

No, sr, either you misread me or I didn't express myself clearly.

In first person, thoughts are surely an effective way to make up for the singular perspective. Thoughts are really quasi-narrative and need no punctuation (or italics).

Surely, in first person you can more effectively write - I wondered what I was doing - rather than - I thought, I wonder what I'm doing.

I never raised the idea about using thoughts in writing, just how to express them. Read my comments more carefully before venting your spleen.

The thread question--and my responses--were on how to render them if you choose to use them (which is a writer's right to do), not whether to use them at all. So, your argument against using them is just irrelevant to what was asked as well as to anything I posted.

Thought, though often vital to fiction, is never dialogue so any use of speech marks is jejune. Italics are an effete way of hiding inadequacies.

Or they are a useful way of showing emphasis, and the difference between internal speech -- a thought -- and external speech.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elfin_odalisque

In first, or even third, person, the rumblings of the wheels in the brain are thoughts, not dialogue, and should be rendered as such in context.

That would depend on a lot of things. What if a person is arguing with himself? Or trying to think something through, imagining what someone else might say? Or what their own reply to a question is? And how about the telepathic dialogue so often used in sf, fantasy and nonhuman stories?

Or they are a useful way of showing emphasis, and the difference between internal speech -- a thought -- and external speech.

That would depend on a lot of things. What if a person is arguing with himself? Or trying to think something through, imagining what someone else might say? Or what their own reply to a question is? And how about the telepathic dialogue so often used in sf, fantasy and nonhuman stories?

I think that italics work fine for emphasis but not as a form of thought dialogue. If you are writing in first person, your thoughts are simply part of the narrative of your POV. Sure use italics for stress but not for a substitute for dialogue tags. It's 'cluncky'.

As the CMS says - and sr doesn't like - thoughts are not speech and grammar tyrants should get their heads around that.

sr, not obsessed with this thread but amused by why you prove my long held view.

First person POV is an emotive and personal way of writing a story but, without full understanding of the elephant traps, and the intent of the writer, is like (figuratively) putting a Kalashnikov in a child's hands.

You and I have differed on whether first person is a sensible first step for a new creative fiction writer. I argue that the POV is hellish difficult and think this thread proves my point. Even you seem to agree, as you seem to be confused between dialogue and thoughts in first person; just falling back on the CMS Qu'aran.

The thread surely demonstrates there is a quantum jump between those using first person and those understanding its ramifications. Perhaps including you - given your posts here.

Surely, rule one is, while writing in first person, no dialogue can occur unless talking to a third party. Else nothing makes sense.

I'll leave all of the confusion to you, Elfin. Your post isn't remotely related to anything I've posted. And your take on 1st person (and whatever you are trying to say about its relationship to dialogue or thoughts) is a bunch of crap. I'm not surprised, though, that you think it's too hard for you to write in.

It is lovely to see you revert to type, eyes blazing, spume and spittle dribbling from your lips.

Most people on these boards debate; you behave like the adolescent bully on the corner trying to cow lesser mortals with your opiniated belief that you are the literary messiah we all should bow before.

My view, shared with others on these boards, that first person is a very difficult, though rewarding, writing style, has only met with banal insults and vituperation from you.

If you are as cerebral as you claim, perhaps you might consider joining a discussion rather than react like the feral youth in our cities.

You demean yourself, and the extraordinary knowledge you could offer, by your temper tantrums and lack of respect, is wasted.

Other people's opinions, and wishes, have value - though you are too arrogant and aggressivive to notice.

There are others, more skilled than I, who demurely give superb feedback on this thread. You are too mighty for that.